I think, if a citizen were defending their property or life from criminals and someone was accidently hurt or killed by them, that death should also be attributable to the criminals who did the original crime. It seems a logical extention of felony murder laws.

Good for her. And good for the owner who did shoot one at another store. If there's anything better than watching the pathetic robbers scatter like the rats they are, I haven't seen it.

But plenty of libs will say she should have just let them have their way, while waiting on cops armed with nothing mroe than harsh words.

(Comment posted here because there's no catch-all today, and it is kind of tangentially related to the packin' mama:)

Never forget, modernity is a ALWAYS about the sisters.

Always.

I'm a moderate liberal, but have no sympathy for armed robbers. It was enjoyable watching those criminals scatter when someone had the nerve to fight back. The problem is, even for trained professionals, it's not easy to hit what you're shooting at with a pistol when under great stress, especially when there are multiple targets. Shotguns are much better for home and business defense - more favorable odds of taking down the bad guys, less chance of hitting innocent bystanders.

My favorite grannie packing video. Extra points for use of the word "toodles" !

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=CYXJYQZ3FX0

"Shotguns are much better for home and business defense - more favorable odds of taking down the bad guys, less chance of hitting innocent bystanders."

Go talk to the ATF/Feds in general and Congress to rescind the laws and regulations against sawed off shotguns or "AOW" classifications without a $200 tax and a 6+ month waiting period for a "deep" background check.

Pistols are often easier to hide and use than your standard 12/20 gauge shotgun at legal barrel lengths, especially if you're a "granny".

> I'm a moderate liberal, but have no
> sympathy for armed robbers.

Me too. (Seriously.)

I don't understand how anyone who advocates aggressive gun control can can explain the video between :35 and :47— A large SUV (a fairly opulent one, at that) pulls up slowly and obviously in broad daylight, in front of passersby, and five athletic, hooded figures emerge to enter a jewelry store.

The community –specifically, law enforcement– takes no notice.

Can anyone seriously argue that this woman shouldn't protect herself, her customers, her employees and their livelihood with deadly force?

I've found the shop on Google maps. I'm seriously considering sending flowers.

Always remember this.

I think, if a citizen were defending their property or life from criminals and someone was accidently hurt or killed by them, that death should also be attributable to the criminals who did the original crime. It seems a logical extention of felony murder laws. -- momof4 at August 4, 2012 10:01 AM

That's how it worked in the Blanchard, Ok. Case.

"A large SUV (a fairly opulent one, at that) pulls up slowly and obviously in broad daylight, in front of passersby, and five athletic, hooded figures emerge to enter a jewelry store. "

Because poverty. You racist!

How dare you!

How dare you!